[HPforGrownups] Pullman is Lockhart was Re: The Hidden Key to Harry Potter

[pennylin]

No: HPFGUIDX 60295

Hi --

I originally wrote: >In the CoS section, Granger makes
>a very persuasive and novel case that the real-life model for the 
>character of
>Gilderoy Lockhart is Philip Pullman, author of the "Dark 
>Materials" trilogy. I
>found this to be particularly interesting, because it's something 
>I've *never* seen discussed anywhere in the fandom.


Kia responded with:

<<<<I think this is where Granger is taking it too far and just for this 
one argument the whole "Rowling is an inkling" becomes 
dubious and sounds like Granger just want to re-write the books 
in his line of thinking instead of giving a unbiased analysis.>>>>>>>>>

Well, the Pullman comparison is such a small part of the book overall that it's a bit drastic, IMHO, to write off his entire thesis and analysis just because you think he's offbase for equating Pullman with Gilderoy Lockhart.  Granger admits that some of his reasons for thinking the real life model for Lockhart is Pullman are "silly," while other reasons are more considered.  Overall, I just thought it was an interesting comparison, since I always assumed that Lockhart was based on her ex-husband.  It was interesting to me to consider other possibilities.

<<<<Rowling herself actually likes Pullman's writing (what she stated 
more than once) and however I twist my mind around it, 
Lockhart's writing are not the tiniest little bit portrayed as good.>>>>>

I've actually never seen her express any opinion (good or bad) on Pullman's writing or even mention him.  Do you have any sources?

Kia again:

<<<<<I think without a doubt, Granger dislikes Pullman and 
his anti-"Narnianism". Everything Granger values, Pullman 
openly detests. 

And this is where the Lockhart is Pullman theory is wishful 
thinking on the side of Granger. And with that little tidbit in mind
- that Granger does over-interpretate in order to get the desired 
results - the rest of his arguments have to face the question of 
how much they are actually wishful thinking.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, like I said, it doesn't seem fair to me to dismiss his entire thesis and all his arguments, just because you don't believe he's hit the mark with one small tangential point.  It doesn't *matter* whether Lockhart's real life model is Philip Pullman, Jorge Arantes (her ex), a mixture of people or someone else entirely.  That point is completely inconsequential to Granger's overall message.  Yes, Granger is up-front that he dislikes Pullman's writing and that he thinks the world of Lewis.  But, it really isn't *necessarily* "wishful thinking on Granger's part" as you say, Kia.  It *might* be; then again, it might not be.  Unless JKR ever discloses the actual model for Lockhart, we won't *know* for sure.  Well, not unless she were to publicly discuss Granger's theory in particular and admit its truth or disavow it.  This seems unlikely to happen.  

Again, whatever you may think about that particular point, it's really so incredibly tangential to the overall arguments advanced in the book that it doesn't make much sense to me to dismiss his book on those grounds alone.  

Your points about symbolism are, however, well-taken.  I happen to like symbols.  I think it's *arguable* that Rowling's use was intentional, but then again, it's just as plausible that these "symbols" have no particular meaning for her at all.  I daresay she won't discuss it though until after the 7th book is published, so we'll just all have to bide our time.  

Penny




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]